UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES MINT
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Union/Petitioner

Case No. 3-AC-70001

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

I. Statement of the Case

On April 29, 1988, the Activity filed a timely
application for review under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations. The Activity seeks review of the Regional Director's Decision and
Order which amended the unit description concerning temporary employees. The
Union did not file an opposition.

For the reasons discussed below, we deny the application
for review.

II. Regional Director's Decision

Since 1980, the Union has been certified as the
exclusive representative of the following consolidated unit:

All professional and nonprofessional employees of the
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Mint, including special police and
guards, excluding special police and guards assigned to the Philadelphia Mint,
management officials, employees engaged in Federal personnel work in other than
a purely clerical capacity, confidential employees, temporary employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Order.

Regional Director's Decision at 2.

By the Amendment of Certification (AC) petition, the Union
requested that the unit description be amended to explicitly exclude temporary
employees who are employed for up to 700 hours and have no reasonable
expectation of reappointment.

The Activity opposed the AC petition on the basis that
all temporary employees (not merely those employed up to 700 hours with no
reasonable expectation of reappointment) historically have been excluded from
the bargaining unit. Consequently, the Activity asserted that the petition
raised a question concerning representation with respect to temporary
employees.

The Regional Director concluded that the existing
certification could be amended to exclude those temporary employees who are
appointed for up to 700 hours and have no reasonable expectation of
reappointment. He found that the remaining temporary employees share a clear
and identifiable community of interest with other employees at the Activity and
that their inclusion in the unit will promote effective dealings and efficiency
of operations at the Activity.

The Regional Director rejected the Activity's argument
that all temporary employees have been excluded from the unit since 1981.
Accordingly, he found that the petition did not raise a question concerning
representation and denied the Activity's Motion to Dismiss Petition on this
basis.

III. Application for Review

The Activity bases its application for review on two
grounds. First, it contends that a substantial question of law or policy is
raised because of (1) the absence of or (2) a departure from Authority
precedent. The Activity argues--without citing any Authority precedent--that
the Regional Director departed from Authority precedent by accreting employees
into a bargaining unit in the context of an AC petition. The Activity asserts
that an AC petition traditionally has been used to make minor changes to the
certification, such as changes in the agency or union name. The Activity
maintains that the Union was required to file a petition to clarify its unit (a
CU petition) in order to exclude certain temporary employees. The Activity also
argues that temporary employees have not been part of the bargaining unit for
several years, and therefore they should have a right to vote on being
represented by the Union.

Second, the Activity contends that extraordinary
circumstances warrant reconsideration of an Authority policy. The Activity
states that even if the Regional Director properly considered the Union's AC
petition as if it were a CU petition, the temporary employees who were not
excluded from the unit by the Regional Director are entitled to vote on whether
they desire to be represented by the Union. It argues that since 1973, the
parties have been confused about the definition of temporary employees and were
unaware of the definition concerning temporary employees established by the
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations in Department of
the Treasury, Bureau of the Mint, 3 A/SLMR 186, 188 n.3 (1973). The
Activity argues that such confusion meant that temporary employees were not
consistently considered to be unit members. In its view, this inconsistent
treatment created extraordinary circumstances which warrant giving the
temporary employees the opportunity to vote on whether they want to be
represented by the Union.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

We conclude that no compelling reasons exist within the
meaning of section 2422.17(c) for granting the application for review. We find
that no substantial question of law or policy is raised by reason of a
departure from Authority precedent. The Activity contends without setting forth
any supporting precedent that the Regional Director's clarification of
bargaining unit inclusions or exclusions in an AC petition is contrary to
Authority precedent. We reject the contention for the following
reasons.

In filing the AC petition, the Union sought to amend the
unit description to exclude temporary employees who are employed up to 700
hours and have no reasonable expectation of reappointment. RD Decision at 2. An
AC petition is not the appropriate vehicle to obtain the result sought by the
Union. An AC petition is intended to accommodate a nominal or technical change
of an activity or exclusive representative. Department of Defense, Office of
Dependents Education, 15 FLRA 493, 496 (1984) and Headquarters, U.S.
Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, Missouri, 2 A/SLMR 278, 280
(1972). Rather a CU petition is the appropriate vehicle for resolving the
bargaining unit status of temporary employees. A CU petition is intended to
clarify, consistent with the parties' intent, the unit inclusions or exclusions
after the basic question of representation has been resolved. Headquarters,
U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command, 2